[PATCH] build: bump meson version to remove warnings
Bruce Richardson
bruce.richardson at intel.com
Fri Jan 23 17:11:33 CET 2026
On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 10:59:23AM -0500, Patrick Robb wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 10:43 AM Bruce Richardson
> <[1]bruce.richardson at intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 10:35:53AM -0500, Patrick Robb wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 4:02 AM Bruce Richardson
> > <[1][2]bruce.richardson at intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 01:59:19PM -0500, Patrick Robb wrote:
> > > Thanks David for the CC. We need to rebuild all of our
> DPDK
> > > container images for the distro build testing etc. which
> takes
> > some
> > > time. We should be ready early next week.
> > >
> > Is rebuilding all container images something that needs to be
> done
> > every
> > time we do a minimum meson version bump? If so, we probably
> need to
> > look to
> > take steps to make things easier to do.
> >
> > Right now we do build new images any time any DPDK dependencies
> are
> > updated, including meson. That's done with the dpdk-ci template
> engine
> > (an application that templates out Dockerfiles for DPDK CI
> > testing):
> [2][3]https://git.dpdk.org/tools/dpdk-ci/tree/containers
> > However, to simplify we can just move to installing meson at
> runtime in
> > all cases. We already have to do this sometimes (like when
> testing with
> > an LTS that requires a different meson) so doing it in all
> cases
> > wouldn't be too disruptive. And, of course the main point is
> that that
> > would allow us to accomodate a version bump like this without
> > rebuilding the CI images. Let me know if you have an opinion.
> In any
> > case I will chat with the CI Lab students about it.
> >
> Having it installed at runtime would be definitely good.
> The other thing I was considering is whether we actually need to use
> the
> minimum meson version for all build testing. If one or two
> containers have
> the minimum version that should be fine, and others can use the
> distro
> supplied version so long as its >= minimum.
>
> Okay, both of the options above sound good. From my end if I had to
> choose I would just do the first solution (install meson at runtime in
> all cases) because it keeps our process uniform across distro testing
> and there is no "special" container. But, the second option sounds good
> too so please let me know what you think is best.
>
Go with your runtime solution, it's fine - and possibly better.
More information about the ci
mailing list